Teaching and Learning Conditions in Colorado SurveySummary of Key Findings From January 22nd to March 1st, the 2020 TLCC survey collected perception data from 37,536 educators across

Teaching and Learning Conditions in Colorado Survey Summary Report

Spring 2020

Colorado Department of Education

CDE2018 1 A C:\Users\che64047\Dropbox\TripodData\DataFall2015&Spring2016\SurveyData\requests

\CDE\reports\CDE2018_summary_report_draft.docx Cambridge Education

Cambridge Education 101 Station Drive Suite 130 Westwood MA 02090 United States of America T +1 (781) 915 0015 F +1 (781) 915 0145 camb-ed-us.com

Teaching and Learning Conditions in Colorado Survey Summary Report

Spring 2020

Colorado Department of Education

Cambridge Education | Teaching and Learning Conditions in Colorado Survey Summary Report

CDE2020 | 1 | A | Spring 2020

Issue

Document reference: CDE 2020 | 1 | A Information class: Standard

This docum ent is issued for the party which commissioned it and for specific purposes connected with the above-capti oned project only. I t shoul d not be r elied upon by any other par ty or used for any other purpose.

We accept no r esponsibility for the consequences of this docum ent being reli ed upon by any other party , or being used for any other purpose, or containi ng any error or omission w hich is due to an error or omission in data suppli ed to us by other parties.

This docum ent contai ns confi denti al inform ation and pr opri etary intellectual property. It should not be show n to other parti es without consent from us and fr om the party which commissioned it.

This Report has been prepared solely for use by the party which commissioned it (the 'Client') in connection with the captioned project. It should not be used for any other purpose. No person other than the Client or any party who has expressly agreed terms of reliance with us (the 'Recipient(s)') may rely on the content, information or any views expressed in the Report. This Report is confidential and contains proprietary intellectual property and we accept no duty of care, responsibility or liability to any other recipient of this Report. No representation, warranty or undertaking, express or implied, is made and no responsibility or liability is accepted by us to any party other than the Client or any Recipient(s), as to the accuracy or completeness of the information contained in this Report. For the avoidance of doubt this Report does not in any way purport to include any legal, insurance or financial advice or opinion.

We disclaim all and any liability whether arising in tort, contract or otherwise which we might otherwise have to any party other than the Client or the Recipient(s), in respect of this Report, or any information contained in it. We accept no responsibility for any error or omission in the Report which is due to an error or omission in data, information or statements supplied to us by other parties including the Client (the 'Data'). We have not independently verified the Data or otherwise examined it to determine the accuracy, completeness, sufficiency for any purpose or feasibility for any particular outcome including financial.

Forecasts presented in this document were prepared using the Data and the Report is dependent or based on the Data. Inevitably, some of the assumptions used to develop the forecasts will not be realised and unanticipated events and circumstances may occur. Consequently, we do not guarantee or warrant the conclusions contained in the Report as there are likely to be differences between the forecasts and the actual results and those differences may be material. While we consider that the information and opinions given in this Report are sound all parties must rely on their own skill and judgement when making use of it.

Information and opinions are current only as of the date of the Report and we accept no responsibility for updating such information or opinion. It should, therefore, not be assumed that any such information or opinion continues to be accurate subsequent to the date of the Report. Under no circumstances may this Report or any extract or summary thereof be used in connection with any public or private securities offering including any related memorandum or prospectus for any securities offering or stock exchange listing or announcement.

By acceptance of this Report you agree to be bound by this disclaimer. This disclaimer and any issues, disputes or claims arising out of or in connection with it (whether contractual or non-contractual in nature such as claims in tort, from breach of statute or regulation or otherwise) shall be governed by, and construed in accordance with, the laws of England and Wales to the exclusion of all conflict of laws principles and rules. All disputes or claims arising out of or relating to this disclaimer shall be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the English and Welsh courts to which the parties irrevocably submit.

Cambridge Education | Teaching and Learning Conditions in Colorado Survey Summary Report

CDE2020 | 1 | A | Spring 2020

Contents

Introduction 1

Summary of Key Findings 3

1 Methodology 6

2 Response Rate 7 2.1 Educator Role and Years of Service 9

3 Preliminary Findings 13 3.1 Instructional Practices and Support – 83.8% 15 3.2 District Supports – 82.7% 16 3.3 Good Place to Work and for Students to Learn – 82.7% 18 3.4 Managing Student Conduct – 77.5% 21 3.5 Time – 58.3% 22 3.6 Professional Development – 68.4% 23 3.7 New Teacher Supports – 73.1% 25

4 Comparisons by Subgroup 29 4.1 Comparisons by Role 29 4.2 Comparisons by School Level 34 4.3 Comparisons by Years of Experience in Current Position at the Present

School 38 4.4 Comparisons by Years of Career Experience in Current Position 41

About Cambridge Education 45

Appendix- District Response Rate 46

Cambridge Education | Teaching and Learning Conditions in Colorado Survey 1 Summary Report

CDE2020 | 1 | A | Spring 2020

Introduction

The Colorado Department of Education (CDE), in collaboration with the Colorado Education Association, Colorado Education Initiative, Colorado Association of School Boards, Colorado Association of School Executives, Colorado League of Charter Schools, Colorado Rural Schools Alliance, and representatives from school districts, universities and researchers, worked with Cambridge Education in Spring 2020 on the second statewide administration of the Teaching and Learning Conditions in Colorado (TLCC) survey1.

This continuing effort to assess school teaching and learning conditions allows Colorado educators to have a better understanding of their experience in the classrooms and schools, and leaders to deepen improvement planning and strengthen research and policy in the state and districts.

About the Survey Developed by APA Consulting and partner organizations and districts, the Teaching and Learning Conditions in Colorado (TLCC) Survey - formerly TELL Colorado Survey - is a statewide survey of school-based staff (teachers and building leadership) on their perceptions of the reaching and learning conditions in their school. The survey instrument provide feedback from educations on indicators such as School and Teacher Leadership, Instruction Practices and Support, Professional Development, Facilities and Resources, Managing Student Conduct, Time for Collaborative Instructional Planning, Facilities and Resources, Community Support and Involvement, and other supports.

See Table 1 for descriptions of each construct.

Table 1. 2020 TLCC Survey- Description of Constructs 2

School Leadership This area is aimed at the school leadership’s role within the school, the vision provided and the culture of the building. These items refer to the team that leads the school; they are not limited to the principal.

Professional Development This section summarizes the school’s general approach to professional development, including alignment with other work, adequacy and types of opportunities.

District Supports Unique to building leaders (excluding charter leaders), these questions ask about their impressions of the level of district support for the school.

Community Support and Involvement

This section summarizes the school’s approach to family and community support and engagement.

Overall Reflection This area is gauges staff’s overall impressions of the school, as well as future employment plans.

1 It is also the Sixth statewide administration of the educator survey. 2 CDE and EDAC have carefully reviewed and made enhancements to the 2018 TLCC Survey before the Spring 2020 survey

administration.


CDE2020 | 1 | A | Spring 2020

Facilities and Resources This section focuses on student class size, instructional resources, and safety.

Teacher Leadership This area focuses on the role of teachers as leaders within the school and the level of influence that teachers hold.

Instructional Practices and Support

This section is aimed at the instructional approach of the school and the intentional supports for various student groups.

Time This area focuses on the availability of and use of time.

Managing Student Conduct This area centers on school safety and expectations for student behavior.

New Teacher Questions Only delivered to new teachers (1-3 years at current school), these questions relate to specific supports for new teachers (e.g., training, mentoring)

Item construction of the core items follows a left positive 4-point Likert response, ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree, with a 5th option for “I don’t know”. The summarized results in this report and other level of reports are presented in the favorability rating format which is the percentage of the “Strongly Agree” and “Agree” responses.


CDE2020 | 1 | A | Spring 2020

Summary of Key Findings From January 22nd to March 1st, the 2020 TLCC survey collected perception data from 37,536 educators across Colorado on their attitudes toward the teaching and learning conditions in their school and district. This section is intended as an initial high-level summary of the key findings of the 2020 results, the discrepancies between and within groups of survey respondents, as well as changes that occurred since the 2018 administration.

Response Rate

During the Spring 2020 survey administration, surveys were sent to 71,755 certified Colorado educators, 37,536 have participated and provided valid responses, yielding an overall response rate of 52.3%. The number of survey respondents grew by 5% this year from the previous statewide administration in 2018 (35,475).

Demographics and Retention

● Majority, 31,869, of the respondents are identified as teachers, making up 84.9% of the total. 1,781 are identified as School Leadership, making up 4.7% of the total.

● 71.4% of the surveyed Colorado educators have more than 6 years of experience in their career in the current position

● Among the factors that affect educators’ decision about whether to continue teaching at their current school, School Leadership (35.8%), the School Staff (31.6%), and Salary (12.8%) are the most frequently cited, the same top reasons educators selected during the previous survey administration.

● 8 out of 10 (82.2%) educators would continue in the current position at the same school after the end of this school year, while 3.7% would just leave the field of education.

TLCC 2020 vs TLCC 2018 Scores

Year

New Teacher Questions

School Leadership

Teacher Leadership

Managing Student Conduct


Professional Development Time

Facilities and Resources


Overall Reflection

District Supports

SP2020 73.1% 78.9% 79.0% 77.5% 83.8% 68.4% 58.3% 80.9% 82.1% 82.7% 82.7%

SP2018 69.8% 79.2% 79.0% 76.6% 84.8% 68.4% 57.8% 80.5% 83.1% 89.0% 81.4%

Top Three Rated Constructs

1. Instructional Practices and Support ● 83.8% of the surveyed educators, compared to 84.8% in 2018, report positively to

Instructional Practices and Support ● Almost all educators (97.5%) agree that “I use formative assessment data to improve my

students’ learning”. This is, again, the item that has the highest rate of agreement of the entire survey.

2. District Supports ● Colorado school leaders indicate that, overall, conditions associated with District Supports

remain largely positive and progressively improving.


CDE2020 | 1 | A | Spring 2020

● 9 out of 10 (89.9%) school leaders believe that district leadership is committed to offering supports by taking steps to solve problems, compared with 86.8% the Spring 2018 administration.

● Support for students’ social, emotional, and mental health (23.5% of the surveyed school leaders), Working with families and community (12%), and Teacher remediation/coaching (10.9%) are the top 3 areas school leaders report that they need additional supports in.

3. Overall Reflection ● Nearly 8 out of 10 Colorado Educators agree that, overall, their school is a good place to

work and for students to learn. ● The favorability score of Overall Reflection is down 6 points from the Spring 2018 survey

administration (89%) ● 7 out 10 survey educators (73.3%) feel satisfied with the recognition they get for doing a

good job.

Lowest Rated Constructs

1. Time ● Time remains the lowest rated construct of the TLCC survey this year. ● Inadequate time to prepare for instructions and support students is still challenging for

Colorado educators. ● Only 5 out of 10 educators (52.6%) agree that they have adequate time to support

students’ social and emotional learning. This is also the least favorable item among the entire TLCC survey questions.

2. Professional Development ● Approximately 43.5% educators perceive that the effectiveness of professional

development might not be assessed regularly or should have been assessed more regularly.

● Social-emotional learning of all students (13.2% of the surveyed educators), teaching students with trauma (11.5%), and differentiating instruction (8.8%), are the top 3 areas educators think would be most beneficial for teachers to learn more about.

3. New Teacher Supports ● 7 out of 10 new teachers (73.6%) indicate that they have received various new teacher

supports at their current School. ● Among new teachers who have received new teacher supports at their current school,

83% have had a new teacher orientation, 62% have ongoing communication with school leaders, and 51% have been scheduled a shared planning time.

● Nearly 40% of the beginning teachers who have received new teacher supports have never been assigned a mentor.

4. Managing Student Conduct ● 46.6% of surveyed Colorado educators (46.6%) perceive that rules for student behavior

are not enforced in a consistent manner.


CDE2020 | 1 | A | Spring 2020

Comparisons by Subgroup - Role

● School leaders view teaching conditions more positively than other educators. The greatest gaps in perceptions between teachers and school leaders resides in Time, where 85.4% of the school leaders’ responses are positive, while only 55.9% of the teachers’ responses are positive.

● “Rules for student behavior are enforced in a consistent manner”, same as the last survey administration, is the item with the greatest difference between school leaders and teachers. A wider gap is seen this year, with 88.1% of the school leaders agree with this item, while y 50.6% of the teachers agree.

Comparisons by Subgroup – School Level

● Elementary educators report more positive teaching conditions in all areas except Time. ● One of the largest gaps between educators from Elementary schools (62.4%) and the ones

from other school levels resides in the item “Rules for student behavior are enforced in a consistent manner" under Managing Student Conduct. Educators from Elementary schools rate 18.3 points higher than the others. All school levels have a lower rating to this question item this year compared to the observed results from 2018.

Comparisons by Subgroup – Years of Experience in Current Position at the Present School

● Educators who are in their first year at their present school perceive teaching and learning conditions more positively, while educators with 4-10 years of experience at their present school perceive less positively in most of the areas.

Comparisons by Subgroup – Years of Career Experience in Current Position

● Beginning educators perceive teaching and learning conditions more positively than the veteran educators, especially in Time, Professional Development, and School Leadership.

The summary of aggregate figures for different constructs and subgroups above will be presented and analyzed in more details in the following chapters.


CDE2020 | 1 | A | Spring 2020

1 Methodology

The surveys were hosted online and administered anonymously. 71,755 surveys for all school-based licensed educators in Colorado were generated based on the headcount provided by the districts and the Colorado Department of Education (CDE). Login information was delivered directly to each of the 1,958 schools in 186 districts electronically and physically for further distribution.

Cambridge Education closely monitored the survey response rate. A real-time response rate tracker3 was developed for the stakeholders’ convenience. Stakeholders can search and filter schools or districts through the entire state. During the survey window (Jan 22nd to March 1st, 2020), the data was updated every 2 minutes, or immediately after refreshed.

Live and online helpdesk information was also provided to all survey administrators and participants. During the survey period, the helpdesk service team received and resolved about 150 phone calls and 411 online support tickets.

A self-sign up portal was also created for those who misplaced or never received an anonymous access code. Survey participants were able to receive a new anonymous code immediately after entering their school and email address.

3 TLCC Survey Real Time Response Rate Tracker: https://tlcc-tracking.cedu.io/

https://tlcc-tracking.cedu.io/


CDE2020 | 1 | A | Spring 2020

2 Response Rate

The number of survey respondents grew by 5% this year from the previous statewide administration in 2018. During the Spring 2020 survey administration, surveys were sent to 71,755 certified Colorado educators, 37,536 have participated and provided valid responses4 (Table 2), yielding an overall response rate of 52.3%. Response rates also vary by school type.

As Table 2 demonstrates, 56% of elementary school educators participated, 57.5% of middle school educators, and 54.8% of high school educators responded. In addition, 41.6% of educators from combined elementary and middle schools participated, while 41% of educators from combined middle and high schools, and 26% of educators from combined elementary, middle, and high schools responded.

Among all 186 districts, approximately 62.9%, compared to 51.6% the previous administration, 117 districts, compared to 95 districts the previous administration, met or exceeded the basic 40% response rate reporting threshold required to receive an individual district-level report5. As Table 3 demonstrates, among all 1,958 surveyed schools, approximately 58.1%, compared to 58.8% the previous administration, 1,137 schools, compared to 1,100 schools the previous administration, met or exceeded the basic 50% response rate reporting threshold required to receive an individual school-level report. 6 All data results can be viewed online at https://tlcc-reports.cedu.io

4 Blank responses and responses with only Background questions answered were removed from the response rate calculation 5 Not all districts met or exceeded the 40% response rate threshold are subject to receive an individual district-level report, as there is a

secondary reporting threshold where the number of construct or item level responses must equal to or greater than 10. See District Response Rate in Appendix

6 Not all schools met or exceeded the 50% response rate threshold are subject to receive an individual school-level report, as there is a secondary reporting threshold where the number of construct or item level responses must equal to or greater than 5.

Table 2. 2020 vs 2018 TLCC Survey- Response Rate by School Type

School Type School Count

2020

School Count

2018

Responded 2020

Responded 2018

Headcount 2020

Headcount 2018

Response Rate 2020

(%)

Response Rate 2018

(%)

Elementary 956 930 16,327 16,340 29,142 28,417 56.0 57.5

Middle 271 263 6,567 6,080 11,423 10,654 57.5 57.1

High 330 315 9,536 8,529 17,410 16,092 54.8 53.0

Elementary/Middle 168 162 2,817 2,473 6,771 6,406 41.6 38.6

Middle/High 127 110 1,277 1,076 3,112 2,709 41.0 39.5

Elementary/Middle/High

106 90 1,012 977 3,897 3,507 26.0 27.9

Total 1,958 1,870 37,536 35,475 71,755 67,785 52.3 52.3

https://tlcc-reports.cedu.io/

https://tlcc-reports.cedu.io/


CDE2020 | 1 | A | Spring 2020

Table 3. 2020 vs 2018 TLCC Survey- Number of Schools Meeting the 50% Response Rate Threshold

School Type School Count

2020

School Count

2018

Met or Exceeded 50% Threshold

2020

Met or Exceeded 50% Threshold

2018

Percentage 2020 (%)

Percentage 2018 (%)

Elementary 956 930 594 611 62.1 65.7

Middle 271 263 169 162 62.4 61.6

High 330 315 202 178 61.2 56.5

Elementary/Middle 168 162 75 68 44.6 42.0

Middle/High 127 110 56 49 44.1 44.5

Elementary/Middle/High 106 90 41 32 38.7 35.6

Total 1,958 1,870 1,137 1,100 58.1 58.8


CDE2020 | 1 | A | Spring 2020

2.1 Educator Role and Years of Service

At the beginning of the survey, the participant was asked to select his/her school position, the years he/she has served in this position, and the years he/she has worked at the present school in the position identified. As demonstrated in Figure 1 above, majority, 31,869, of the respondents are identified as teachers, making up 84.9% of the total. Other Education Professional or Service Provider comes in second, with 3,844 respondents, making up 10.2% of the total. 1,781 are identified as School Leadership, making up 4.7% of the total.

The years of service at the present school in the position identified are broken down by First Year, 2-3 Years, 4-5 Years, 6-10 Years, 11-20 Years, and 20+ Years. As indicated in Figure 2, a majority falls in the first five groups. 2-3 Years amounts to 22.3% (8,384) of the surveyed total, making up the most-selected experience level. 17.7% (6,661) of the surveyed total are in their first year in the present school.

Consistency exists in the disaggregated results by position, where 2-3 Years accounts for more than 20% of each of the subgroups.

31,869, 84.9%

3,844, 10.2%

1,781, 4.7%42, 0.1%

Figure1. What is your current position at the school?

Teacher (e.g., general education, specialeducation, interventionist, instructionalcoach)

Other Education Professional or ServiceProvider that does not typically provideacademic instruction (e.g., psychologist,counselor, physical therapist)School Leader (e.g., principal, assistantprincipal, dean)

Combined District and School Leader Role(e.g., dual principal and superintenent in asmall, rural district)

37,536 Total


CDE2020 | 1 | A | Spring 2020

17.7%, 6,661

22.3%, 8,384

14.6%, 5,470

18.1%, 6,79619.2%, 7,218

8.0%, 3,007

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

First Year 2-3 Years 4-5 Years 6-10 Years 11-20 Years 20+ Years

Figure 2. How many years have you worked at your present school in the position identified in Question 1?

14.3%, 6

2.9%, 51

3.7%, 141

8.8%, 2,809

19.0%, 8

9.2%, 164

12.1%, 467

20.6%, 6,579

14.3%, 6

18.5%, 330

14.6%, 563

18.5%, 5,897

2.4%, 1

17.0%, 302

16.3%, 626

14.2%, 4,541

26.2%, 11

30.4%, 542

28.0%, 1,078

21.2%, 6,753

23.8%, 10

22.0%, 392

25.2%, 969

16.6%, 5,290

Combined Districtand School Leader

School Leader

EducationProfessional

or Service Provider

Teacher

Figure 3. How many years have you worked at your present school in the position identified in Question 1? by Role

First Year

2-3 Years

4-5 Years

6-10 Years

11-20 Years

20+ Years


CDE2020 | 1 | A | Spring 2020

The years of service in the current position are also broken down by First Year, 2-3 Years, 4-5 Years, 6-10 Years, 11-20 Years, and 20+ Years. As Figure 4 demonstrates below, more than 70% of the surveyed Colorado educators have more than six years of experience. The most-selected experience level, 11-20 Years, makes up 30.7% (11,520) of the total number of survey respondents. The least-selected experience level, First Year in their career, makes up 6.5% (2,444) of the total number of respondents, while 17.7% (6,661) are new in their position at the present school, indicating a considerable number of educators transferring from one school to another within the State during the past year.

As in Figure 5, consistency also exists in the disaggregated results by position. More than half of the surveyed educators have more than 6 years of experience in their career in the current position. Similarly, 10,170 (31.9%) of the surveyed teachers have 11-20 years of experience in their career. According to and Education Week analysis of new data from the U.S. Department of Education’s office for civil rights7, nationally, 12% of all public-school teachers are in their first or second year, while in Colorado, 5.7% of surveyed teachers, and 10.8% education professional or service providers are new in their first year.

7 https://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2016/10/05/new-teachers-make-up-a-significant-segment.html

6.5%, 2,444

10.9%, 4,087 11.2%, 4,218

20.9%, 7,829

30.7%, 11,520

19.8%, 7,438

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

First Year 2-3 Years 4-5 Years 6-10 Years 11-20 Years 20+ Years

Figure 4. How many years have you worked in your career in this position/role?

71.4% OF THE SURVEYED COLORADO EDUCATORS HAVE MORE THAN 6 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE IN THEIR

CAREER IN THE CURRENT POSITION


CDE2020 | 1 | A | Spring 2020

14.3%, 6

10.0%, 178

14.6%, 561

21.0%, 6,693

35.7%, 15

20.3%, 362

25.3%, 973

31.9%, 10,170

11.9%, 5

23.8%, 423

19.7%, 757

20.8%, 6,644

16.7%, 7

16.1%, 287

13.8%, 532

10.6%, 3,392

16.7%, 7

18.1%, 323

15.7%, 605

9.9%, 3,152

4.8%, 2

11.7%, 208

10.8%, 416

5.7%, 1,818

Combined Districtand School Leader

School Leader

EducationProfessional

or Service Provider

Teacher

Figure 5. How many years have you worked in your career in this position/role? by Role

First Year

2-3 Years

4-5 Years

6-10 Years

11-20 Years

20+ Years


CDE2020 | 1 | A | Spring 2020

3 Preliminary Findings

Favorability percentages are calculated by dividing the number of favorable responses (e.g., “Strongly Agree” and “Agree”) by the number of all Likert responses. Favorability results are calculated for all items and constructs. The preliminary findings below are based on data aggregated at the state level. Constructs and question items with relatively high or low scores are identified. Items with significant subgroup disagreements are also identified in the next section, suggesting alternative ways to look at and think about the overall state results.

As indicated in Figure 6, 5 out of the 11 constructs have a favorability percentage over 80%. The top three constructs are Instructional Practices and Support, District Supports, and Overall Reflection, with a favorability rating of 83.8%, 82.7%, and 82.7% respectively. The bottom three are Time, Professional Development, and New Teacher Support, with results of 58.3%, 68.4%, and 73.1.% respectively. 8

While there were new question items added to New Teacher Questions, School Leadership, Managing Student Conduct, Professional Development, Time, and Overall Reflection, the score of each construct does not fluctuate too much besides Overall Reflection this year. The greatest dropdown among all constructs is seen in Overall Reflection, from 89%, rated No.1 in 2018, to

8 Results in the actual PDF reports might vary by one decimal place (0.1) due to floating point error

58.3%

68.4%73.1% 77.5% 78.9% 79.0%

80.9% 82.1% 82.7% 82.7% 83.8%

57.8%

68.4% 69.8%76.6%

79.2%79.0% 80.5%

83.1% 89.0%81.4%

84.8%

Time ProfessionalDevelopment

New TeacherQuestions

ManagingStudentConduct

SchoolLeadership

TeacherLeadership

Facilities andResources

CommunitySupport andInvolvement

OverallReflection

DistrictSupports

InstructionalPractices and

Support

Figure 6. State Level Construct Scores by Year 2020 2018

THE SCORE OF OVERALL REFLECTION IS DOWN 6 POINTS FROM THE SPRING 2018 SURVEY ADMINISTRATION;

TIME REMAINS THE LOWEST RATED CONSTRUCT THIS YEAR.


CDE2020 | 1 | A | Spring 2020

82.7%, rated No.3 this year. Time remains the lowest rated construct this year despite a slightly increase (0.5%) in the favorability score from 2018.

Table 4. State Level Construction Scores and Rankings by Year


CDE2020 | 1 | A | Spring 2020

3.1 Instructional Practices and Support – 83.8% 83.8% of all the responses, to the questions in construct Instructional Practices and Support, compared to 84.8% in 2018, are positive. “I use formative assessment data to improve my students’ learning” is again the top-rated item (97.5%) of the entire survey.

There is no significant change since last administration in most of the question items under this construct. 88%, compared with 91% the previous administration, of the surveyed educators report that they have the autonomy to make important decision for their

classroom. 68.9%, compared with 72.2% the previous administration, perceive that the current curriculum they have at the school level is meeting the diverse academic needs of their students. (Table 5).

9 Item has the highest rating of the entire survey.

Table 5. 2020 vs 2018 TLCC Survey Results- Selected Items in Instructional Practices and Support

Survey Item Score 2020

Num. of Responses

2020

Score 2018

Num. of Responses

2018

I use formative assessment data to improve my students' learning.9 97.5% 37,148 97.5% 35,168

I feel supported in trying new instructional strategies. 91.7% 37,125 91.8% 35,119

Students understand how class activities relate to learning objectives. 91.5% 37,111 91.5% 35,139

I have the autonomy to make important decisions for my classroom. 88.0% 37,131 91.0% 35,130

Students' social and emotional learning is adequately supported in this school. 77.6% 37,117 76.1% 35,143

Gifted students are adequately supported in this school. 74.1% 37,125 75.2% 35,168

The diverse academic needs of our students are met by this school's current curriculum.

68.9% 37,117 72.2% 35,140

84.8% 83.8%

2018 2020


CDE2020 | 1 | A | Spring 2020

3.2 District Supports – 82.7% District Supports question items are exclusive to non-charter school leaders (e.g., principal, assistant principal, dean). Improvement is seen in District Supports this year, where 82.7% of the surveyed Colorado school leaders, compared with 81.4% the previous administration, rate positively. A majority believe that district leadership is committed to offering supports by taking steps to solve problems (89.8%), involving principals in decisions that directly impact the operations of their school (84.7%), creating an atmosphere of trust and mutual respect (84.6%),

providing support when principals need it (84.5%), and clearly describing expectations (83%).

Particularly, “My school receives instructional resources on par with other schools in the district”, rated 81.7% this year and 77% previously, and “The district clearly describes expectations for schools”, rated 83% this year and 78.6% previously, are among the items that the State improves the most in.

Table 6. 2020 vs 2018 TLCC Survey Results - Items in District Supports


Num. of Responses

2020

Score 2018

Num. of Responses

2018

District leadership takes steps to solve problems. 89.8% 1,599 86.8% 1,398

The district involves principals in decisions that directly impact the operations of their school.

84.7% 1,612 84.2% 1,397

There is an atmosphere of trust and mutual respect between district and school administrators.

84.6% 1,611 85.2% 1,403

The district provides principals with support when they need it. 84.5% 1,611 85.9% 1,403

The district clearly describes expectations for schools. 83.0% 1,613 78.6% 1,400

My school receives instructional resources on par with other schools in the district.

81.7% 1,605 77.0% 1,401

The district provides constructive feedback to school leadership to improve performance.

79.7% 1,609 79.1% 1,399

School leaderships’ effectiveness is accurately assessed through the district’s evaluation process.

78.2% 1,610 79.0% 1,398

The district makes principal professional development a priority. 77.7% 1,605 75.8% 1,402

81.4% 82.7%

2018 2020


CDE2020 | 1 | A | Spring 2020

School leaders were also asked the areas that they need additional support to lead their school effectively. The top three areas reported are Support for students’ social, emotional, and mental health, 23.5% of the responses, Working with families and community, 12% of the response, and Teacher remediation/coaching, 10.9% of the responses. Supports for School scheduling and Student assessment are the least needed, with 3.2% and 3.5% of the responses respectively.

3.2%, 109

3.5%, 121

4.1%, 141

4.7%, 159

5.1%, 174

7.1%, 243

8.1%, 276

8.8%, 299

9.0%, 308

10.9%, 371

12.0%, 408

23.5%, 802

School scheduling

Student assessment

Teacher evaluation

School Improvement Planning(e.g., Unified Improvement…

Creating positive learningenvironments

Budgeting

Data-driven decision making

Instructional leadership

Staffing (hiring etc.)

Teacher remediation/coaching

Working with families andcommunity

Support for students' social,emotional and mental health

Figure 7. In which of the following areas (if any) do you need additional support to lead your school effectively? (Select up to 3)


CDE2020 | 1 | A | Spring 2020

3.3 Good Place to Work and for Students to Learn – 82.7% Overall Reflection falls from 89% to 82.7% in Spring 2020. Nearly 9 out of 10 surveyed educators agree that their school is a good place to work and for students to learn. A new item, gauging satisfaction with the recognition educator gets for doing a good job, has been added to the construct, with a 73.7 % favorability rating at the state level.

Table 7. 2020 vs 2018 TLCC Survey Results - Items in Overall Reflection


Num. of Responses

2020

Score 2018

Num. of Responses

2018

I would recommend this school as a good place for students to learn.

88.2% 36,870 90.7% 35,034

I would recommend this school as a good place to work.

86.2% 36,874 87.4% 35,023

I feel satisfied with the recognition I get for doing a good job.

73.7% 36,868 - -

NEARLY 8 OUT OF 10 COLORADO EDUCATORS AGREE THAT, OVERALL, THEIR SCHOOL IS A GOOD PLACE TO WORK AND

FOR STUDENTS TO LEARN.

89.0%

82.7%

2018 2020


CDE2020 | 1 | A | Spring 2020

The construct Overall Reflection also includes two questions regarding educators’ future employment plans. Educators were asked the key factors that impact retention and their plans after the end of this school year.

Among the factors that affect their decision about whether to continue teaching at their current school, School Leadership (35.8%), the School Staff (31.6%), and Salary (12.8%) are the most frequently cited, the same top reasons educators selected during the previous survey administration. (Figure 8)

As for the future plan after the end of this school year, 8 out 10 (82.2%) educators would continue in the current position at the same school, 5.2% educators would continue in the current type of position but at a different school, 4.2% would continue in current type of position but at in a different district, and 3.7% would just leave the field of education. (Figure 9) 10

10 This question item has been updated this year. Unable to compare the 2020 results against 2018’s for this item.

3.4%, 1,180

4.1%, 1,427

4.8%, 1,675

5.4%, 1,873

5.3%, 1,843

13.0%, 4,484

31.1%, 10,734

32.8%, 11,324

3.0%, 1,088

3.7%, 1,357

4.2%, 1,552

4.4%, 1,628

4.5%, 1,645

12.8%, 4,694

31.6%, 11,615

35.8%, 13,167

Length of the Work Day

Community Support and Engagement


District Leadership

School Mission

Salary

The School Staff

School Leadership

Figure 8. Which of the following most affects your decision about whether to continue teaching at this school? (Select one)

2020

2018


CDE2020 | 1 | A | Spring 2020

SCHOOL LEADERSHIP, THE SCHOOL STAFF, AND SALARY ARE THE TOP 3 FACTORS THAT AFFECT EDUCATORS’ DECISION MOST ABOUT WHETHER TO CONTINUE WORKING AT THE CURRENT SCHOOL.

0.1%, 43

1.5%, 536

3.1%, 1,118

3.7%, 1,366

4.2%, 1,549

5.2%, 1,906

82.2%, 30,071

Continue working in education in a teachingposition.

Continue working in education but in anadministrative position.

Continue working in education in an non-administrative, non-teaching position.

Leave the field of education.

Continue in current type of position but not inthis district.

Continue in current type of position in thisdistrict but not at this school.

Continue in current type of position at thisschool.

Figure 9. Which of the following best describes your plans after the end of this school year? (Select one)

2020


CDE2020 | 1 | A | Spring 2020

3.4 Managing Student Conduct – 77.5% Although Managing Student Conduct is not a bottom rated construct, it includes two items that are rated oppositely extreme. While most surveyed educators agree that their students can trust at least one adult on staff at their school for social emotional or personal concerns support (96.7%) and their school is a safe place for students to learn (90%), only 53.4%, dropping from 57.3% from 2018, report that rules for student behavior are enforced consistently. The item “Students have the knowledge, skills and supports needed to focus on learning” has been rephrased this

year to “Students have the behavioral supports needed to focus on learning”. It is rated 67.4%, 9 points lower than the 2018 results. It is also the item regressed the most among the entire TLCC survey instrument.

Table 8. 2020 vs 2018 TLCC Survey Results - Items in Managing Student Conduct


Num. of Responses

2020

Score 2018

Num. of Responses

2018

Students at this school have at least one adult on staff they can trust to support them with social, emotional, or personal concerns.

96.7% 37,305 - -

This school is a safe place for students to learn. 90.0% 37,288 91.3% 35,310

Students know how they are expected to act in the school. 80.1% 37,281 81.0% 35,309

Students have the behavioral supports needed to focus on learning.11 67.4% 37,285 76.6% 35,293

Rules for student behavior are enforced in a consistent manner. 53.4% 37,279 57.3% 35,289

11 Original wording was “Students have the knowledge, skills and supports needed to focus on learning.”

NEARLY FIVE OUT OF TEN COLORADO EDUCATORS PERCEIVE THAT RULES FOR STUDENT BEHAVIOR ARE NOT ENFORCED IN A

CONSISTENT MANNER.

76.6% 77.5%

2018 2020


CDE2020 | 1 | A | Spring 2020

3.5 Time – 58.3% Colorado educators view teaching conditions related to time the least positive (58.3%) among all constructs assessed in the survey. With the highest item scored 63.7%, and the lowest 52.6%, it is challenging for many educators across the state in almost all aspects that are under the Time construct (Table 9).

Almost 50% of surveyed educators are not given adequate time to determine the effectiveness of the “New initiatives (e.g., curriculum, assessments, instructional approach), nor do they have adequate

time to support students’ social and emotional learning. The latter is also the least favorable item among the entire TLCC survey questions.

Table 9. 2020 vs 2018 TLCC Survey Results - Items in Time


Num. of Responses

2020

Score 2018

Num. of Responses

2018

I have adequate time to communicate with my students' families. 63.7% 36,917 64.8% 35,032

I have adequate time to engage in professional learning (e.g., attend trainings, refine new techniques, collaborate with grade level teams).

63.4% 36,879 - -

My time is protected from duties that take time away from teaching. 62.8% 36,919 63.8% 35,062

I have adequate time to prepare for instruction. 57.2% 36,954 57.9% 35,063

I have adequate time to analyze and respond to student assessment data. 54.6% 36,867 54.2% 35,016

New initiatives (e.g., curriculum, assessments, instructional approach) are given enough time to determine their effectiveness.

53.1% 36,893 52.0% 35,030

I have adequate time to support my students' social and emotional learning. 12 52.6% 36,997 53.1% 35,046

12 Item has lowest rating in the survey

TIME REMAINS THE LOWEST RATED CONSTRUCT OF THE SURVEY. INADEQUATE TIME TO PREPARE FOR INSTRUCTIONS AND SUPPORT

STUDENTS IS STILL CHALLENGING FOR COLORADO EDUCATORS.

57.8% 58.3%

2018 2020


CDE2020 | 1 | A | Spring 2020

3.6 Professional Development – 68.4% Approximately 43.5% educators perceive that the effectiveness of professional development might not be assessed regularly or should have been assessed more regularly. 36.1% report that they have not received adequate professional development to support their students’ social and emotional learning.

Improvement is seen in “Professional learning opportunities are personalized and aligned to teachers’ needs and strengths”, with a 66.7% favorability score this year, 3 points higher than the 2018 results (Table 10).

Table 10. 2020 vs 2018 TLCC Survey Results - Items in Professional Development


Num. of Responses

2020

Score 2018

Num. of Responses

2018

Professional learning (e.g., instructional coaching, PLCs, training) has a positive impact on teaching and learning in our classrooms.

76.8% 36,965 76.8% 35,060

The school improvement plan (e.g., Unified Improvement Plan) influences teachers' professional learning choices.

73.8% 37,005 73.4% 35,075

I receive adequate professional development to effectively use student data.

72.7% 36,907 71.7% 35,011

I receive ongoing support and coaching to improve my practice. 69.2% 36,947 70.5% 35,026

Professional learning opportunities are reinforced through coaching (e.g., knowledge building over time).

67.7% 36,917

Professional learning opportunities are personalized and aligned to teachers' needs and strengths.

66.7% 36,915 63.4% 35,076

I receive adequate professional development to support my students' social and emotional learning.

63.9% 37,000 65.0% 35,013

The effectiveness of professional development is assessed regularly. 56.5% 36,988 57.8% 35,059

In order to better meet the needs of Colorado’s educators, the TLCC survey also asks a question about the type of professional support teachers would benefit the most from at their current school. Learning more about social-emotional learning of all students, rated 13.2%, teaching students with trauma, rated 11.5%, and differentiating instruction, rated 8.8%, are the top 3 areas educators think would be most beneficial for teachers; while using assessment results go guide instruction, rated 3.7%, methods of teaching, rated 3.4%, understanding data,

68.4% 68.4%

2018 2020


CDE2020 | 1 | A | Spring 2020

rated 3.2%, and Colorado Academic Standards, rated 2.9%, are less favorable among all topics listed in the question.

2.9%, 3,379

3.2%, 3,712

3.4%, 3,987

3.7%, 4,322

5.0%, 5,800

5.0%, 5,855

5.4%, 6,330

5.8%, 6,707

5.8%, 6,754

6.1%, 7,167

6.6%, 7,664

6.7%, 7,849

6.8%, 7,962

8.8%, 10,305

11.5%, 13,459

13.2%, 15,360

Colorado Academic Standards

Understanding data

Methods of teaching

Using assessment results to guide instruction

Reading strategies

Classroom management techniques

Math interventions

Supporting English Learners

Teaching gifted students

Teachers' content area

Family engagement

Supporting special education (students withdisabilities)

Using technology in classroom instruction

Differentiating instruction

Teaching students with trauma

Social-emotional learning of all students

Figure 10. Which of the following would be most beneficial for teachers in this school to learn more about? (Select up to 4)


CDE2020 | 1 | A | Spring 2020

3.7 New Teacher Supports – 73.1%13 12,043 teachers indicated that they have worked at their present school for less than 4 years, while 4,970 have worked less than 4 years in their career.

7 out of 10 new teachers received various supports at their present school (73.6%, Figure 11), and the supports they received are adequate, (73.5%, compared with 70.8% previous administration, Table 11)

Figure 12 demonstrates the types of support new teachers have received. Approximately, 83.3% have had a new teacher orientation, 61.7% have ongoing

communication with school leaders, and 51.3% have been scheduled a shared planning time. Fewer new teachers report they have received supports in networking with other new teachers (46.1%), training to develop content knowledge (45.2%), training to develop pedagogy (38.9%), other classroom observation (33.8 %), and a reduced workload (8.7%).

13 Favorability ratings are calculated from the items that have Likert scale responses.

5.0%, 621

21.6%, 2,699

73.5%, 9,193

4.8%, 602

21.6%, 2,722

73.6%, 9,259

I don't know

No

Yes

Figure 11. Have you received any new teacher supports at this school?

2020

2018

69.8%73.1%

2018 2020


CDE2020 | 1 | A | Spring 2020

7 OUT OF 10 NEW TEACHERS INDICATE THAT THEY HAVE RECEIVED NEW TEACHER SUPPORTS AT THEIR CURRENT SCHOOL.

NEARLY 40% OF THOSE HAVE NEVER BEEN ASSIGNED A MENTOR.

7.2%, 659

12.6%, 1,158

34.6%, 3,180

36.5%, 3,356

43.7%, 4,021

44.3%, 4,077

49.8%, 4,574

61.6%, 5,664

82.2%, 7,554

8.7%, 807

10.1%, 935

33.8%, 3,131

38.9%, 3,604

45.2%, 4,189

46.1%, 4,265

51.3%, 4,750

61.7%, 5,717

83.3%, 7,712

Reduced teaching responsibilities

Other

Classroom coverage to enable me to observe otherclassrooms

New teacher training to develop pedagogy

New teacher training to develop content knowledge

Networking with other new teachers

Scheduled shared planning time

Ongoing dialogue with school leaders

New teacher orientation (e.g., welcome,administrative procedures)

Figure 12. Which of the following new teacher supports have you received at this school? (Select all that apply)

2020 2018


CDE2020 | 1 | A | Spring 2020

Although improvement is seen in the New Teacher Questions construct and question items, many surveyed new teachers still have not received any or consistent mentor supports.

39.8% of the responded new teachers who have worked less than 4 years in their career have never been assigned a mentor teacher in their current school (Figure 1314). For those who have, 70.7%, compared with 66.3% the 2018 administration, report that they have spent adequate time with their mentor in a typical school week (Table 11). Particularly, 84.5% focus working on instruction and classroom planning, 77.8% on reflective thinking, 71.6% on evaluation feedback, 67.7% on coping with stress and developing social connections, and 63.5% on professional career development.

Table 11. 2020 vs 2018 TLCC Survey Results - Items in New Teacher Questions


Num. of Response 2020

Score 2018

Num. of Responses 2018

To what extent do you meet with your mentor teacher during a typical school week?

70.7% 2,324 66.3% 3,538

To what extent do you focus on the following types of work with your mentor?

Instructional and classroom support (e.g., ideas, resources, advice on instruction and planning)

84.6% 2,176 - -

Reflective support (e.g., helping you think about your work and how it is impacting students)

77.8% 2,162 - -

14 Survey skip logic has been updated this year. 2020 results are incomparable with 2018 results for this item.

2.5%, 102

39.8%, 1,621

57.5%, 2,331

I don't know

No

Yes

Figure 13. Have you been assigned a mentor teacher this school year?


CDE2020 | 1 | A | Spring 2020

Evaluative support (e.g., formative evaluation feedback, advice related to evaluation expectations)

71.6% 2,168 - -

Personal support (e.g., social connections, help with stress) 67.7% 2,165 - -

Professional support (e.g., advice on career, professional networking) 63.5% 2,163 - -

To what degree do you feel that you have received adequate support as a new teacher at this school?

73.4% 12,426 70.8% 12,475


CDE2020 | 1 | A | Spring 2020

4 Comparisons by Subgroup

4.1 Comparisons by Role Educators’ rates of agreement vary by their role. Significant gaps, especially between teachers and school leaders, can be found in areas such as Time, Professional Development, Managing Student Conduct, Teacher leadership, School Leadership, and Facilitates and Resources. (Figure 14 and Table 12).

● School Leaders report higher rates of agreement across all survey constructs compared to other educators.

● The greatest gaps in perceptions between teachers and school leaders resides in Time, where 85.4% of the school leaders’ responses are positive, while 55.9% of the teachers’ responses are positive.

● Compared TLCC 2020 results with TLCC 2018, most ratings hold steady among participant types. Teachers’ rating over Overall Reflection falls from 88.4% to 81.6% in spring 2020, while Combined District and School Leaders’ rating over Managing Student Conduct raises from 82.4% to 91.8%.

86.1%

87.2%

88.9%

88.1%

88.3%

84.2%

91.8%

73.3%

70.8%

88.3%

95.0%

86.9%

90.9%

94.0%

96.5%

93.6%

83.6%

85.4%

85.4%

86.2%

84.1%

82.7%

81.1%

83.5%

82.4%

76.6%

66.6%

83.4%

81.6%

81.6%

80.2%

77.8%

77.4%

76.0%

66.7%

55.9%

Instructional Practices andSupport

Overall Reflection

Community Support andInvolvement


School Leadership

Teacher Leadership


Professional Development

Time

Figure 14. Construct Scores by Role

Teacher

Other EducationProfessional orService Provider

School Leader

Combined District andSchool Leader Role


CDE2020 | 1 | A | Spring 2020

Table 12. 2020 vs 2018 TLCC Survey Results - Common Construct Results by Role

Construct15 Teacher 2020

Teacher 2018

Education Professional

or Service Provider

2020

Education Professional

or Service Provider

2018

School leader

2020

School Leader

2018

Combined District and

School Leader 2020

Combined District and

School Leader 2018

School Leadership 77.8% 78.3% 81.1% 80.9% 94.0% 93.2% 88.3% 84.2%

Teacher Leadership 77.4% 77.7% 83.5% 84.0% 96.5% 95.8% 84.2% 87.5%


76.0% 75.4% 82.4% 80.6% 93.6% 93.0% 91.8% 82.4%


83.4% 84.4% 85.4% 86.4% 88.3% 89.1% 86.1% 82.2%

Professional Development 66.7% 67.0% 76.6% 75.6% 83.6% 82.5% 73.3% 73.7%

Time 55.9% 55.7% 66.6% 67.4% 85.4% 84.0% 70.8% 78.1%

Facilities and Resources 80.2% 80.0% 82.7% 82.0% 90.9% 89.9% 88.1% 83.7%


81.6% 82.6% 84.1% 85.1% 86.9% 87.5% 88.9% 77.1%

Overall Reflection 81.6% 88.4% 86.2% 91.1% 95.0% 97.6% 87.2% 88.1%

15 New Teacher Questions and District Supports are not common constructs for all roles and are not included in the comparison table.

SCHOOL LEADERS VIEW TEACHING CONDITIONS MORE POSITIVELY THAN OTHER EDUCATORS, ESPECIALLY IN THE AREA OF TIME.

.


CDE2020 | 1 | A | Spring 2020

Table 13 highlights the items with the greatest differences in perceptions across roles. It is important for school and district leaders to acknowledge and understand these differences between leadership and teachers in perceiving the teaching and learning conditions as well as pressing needs and concerns.

● “Rules for student behavior are enforced in a consistent manner”, same as the last survey administration, is the item with the greatest difference between school leaders and teachers. A wider gap is seen this year, with 88.1% of the school leaders agree with this item, while 50.6% of the teachers who agree.

● There are more than 20 points of difference between school leaders and teachers’ ratings for all the items in Time.

● 95% of the school leaders perceive that teachers have an adequate level of influence on important school decisions, whereas 68% of teachers agree with this item.

● 85.7% of the school leaders indicate that the professional learning opportunities are personalized and aligned to teachers’ needs and strength, while 61.5% of teachers agree.

● Big gaps are also seen in the two new items under School Leadership. Three quarters of teachers agree that school leadership puts suggestions made by staff into operation and that school leadership works to build trust among staff, while almost all school leaders (97%) agree with both items.

● 9 out of 10school leaders (90.5%) indicate that teacher evaluation process provides teachers with actionable feedback for improvement compared to 7 out of 10 (70%) teachers who agree.


CDE2020 | 1 | A | Spring 2020

Table 13. 2020 vs 2018 TLCC Survey Results - Items with Greatest Subgroup Disagreement by Role (>=20%)

Construct Survey Items Teacher 2020

Teacher 2018

School Leader

2020

School Leader

2018 Diff. 2020 Diff. 2018


Rules for student behavior are enforced in a consistent manner.

50.6% 55.2% 86.3% 88.1% 36% 32.9%

Time Teachers have adequate time to analyze and respond to student assessment data.

52.0% 51.8% 84.5% 82.9% 32% 31.1%

Time Teacher have adequate time to prepare for instruction. 54.5% 55.7% 86.7% 85.3% 32% 29.7%

Time Teachers’ time is protected from duties that take time away from teaching.

61.2% 62.2% 93.3% 92.7% 32% 30.4%

Time New initiatives (e.g., curriculum, assessments, instructional approach) are given enough time to determine their effectiveness.

50.4% 49.7% 82.0% 81.5% 32% 31.8%

Time Teacher have adequate time to communicate with my students' families.

61.5% 62.9% 88.9% 87.2% 27% 24.2%

Teacher Leadership

Teachers have an adequate level of influence on important school decisions.

68.0% 69.0% 95.4% 95.0% 27% 26.0%

Time Teacher have adequate time to support my students' social and emotional learning.

49.7% 50.8% 75.5% 74.0% 26% 23.2%

Time Teachers have adequate time to engage in professional learning (e.g., attend trainings, refine new techniques, collaborate with grade level teams).

61.5% 86.4% 25%


Students have the behavioral supports needed to focus on learning.

65.3% 90.1% 25%



61.5% 63.0% 85.7% 86.5% 24% 23.5%



65.4% 88.0% 23%

School Leadership

School leadership puts suggestions made by staff into operation.

75.0% 97.1% 22%


The effectiveness of professional development is assessed regularly.

54.1% 56.0% 75.9% 74.4% 22% 18.4%

School Leadership

School leadership works to build trust among staff. 75.3% 96.2% 21%


CDE2020 | 1 | A | Spring 2020


All teachers receive ongoing support and coaching to improve their practice.

67.9% 69.4% 88.4% 89.6% 20% 20.2%

School Leadership

The teacher evaluation process provides teachers with actionable feedback for improvement.

70.0% 69.8% 90.5% 90.8% 20% 21.0%


CDE2020 | 1 | A | Spring 2020

4.2 Comparisons by School Level A comparison of different levels of school, Elementary (E), Middle (M), High (H), Combined Elementary and Middle (EM), Combined Middle and High (MH), and Combined Elementary, Middle, and High school (EMH), was also conducted on the survey results. The gaps are seen between Elementary and other school levels in almost all constructs but Instructional Practices and Support. The distribution of Educators’ favorability by construct and school level is similar to the results in 2011. (Figure 15 and Table 14)

● Educators from Elementary schools and Combined Elementary, Middle, and High schools view teaching conditions more positively in almost all constructs.

● The large variations in rates of agreement across school levels are reported in Professional Development, Managing Student Conduct, and Community Support and Involvement.

● The least variations in rates of agreement across school levels are reported in Instructional Practices and Support.

● Improvements are seen in District Support across school levels. Particularly, Combined Elementary and Middle school rated 84.4% positively, compared to 76.4% in 2018.

● 5-8 points of decline in Overall Reflection is seen in every school level. (Table 14)

83.5%

86.4%

85.4%

84.3%

82.7%

81.5%

80.7%

81.2%

70.8%

70.6%

64.6%

77.2%

80.3%

82.1%

83.2%

79.9%

75.1%

75.7%

75.2%

72.0%

63.5%

58.4%

76.8%

78.7%

79.2%

82.9%

76.6%

77.3%

77.6%

71.3%

72.6%

65.8%

56.0%

87.3%

85.7%

85.1%

84.8%

83.3%

82.1%

82.1%

81.7%

75.3%

73.0%

59.0%


District Supports

Overall Reflection



School Leadership

Teacher Leadership




Time

Figure 15. Construct Results by School Level

Elementary

Middle

High

Elementary/Middle

Middle/High

Elementary/Middle/High


CDE2020 | 1 | A | Spring 2020

Table 14. 2020 vs 2018 TLCC Survey Results - Construct Results by School Level

Construct E 2020

E 2018

M 2020

M 2018

H 2020

H 2018

EM 2020

EM 2018

MH 2020

MH 2018

EMH 2020

EMH 2018


75.3% 71.0% 72.6% 68.2% 72.0% 70.5% 69.0% 67.2% 68.0% 66.3% 70.8% 66.6%

School Leadership 82.1% 81.7% 77.3% 77.5% 75.1% 75.6% 76.3% 79.9% 77.4% 78.5% 81.5% 77.9%

Teacher Leadership 82.1% 81.6% 77.6% 78.4% 75.7% 75.6% 75.9% 77.8% 75.8% 76.2% 80.7% 76.6%


81.7% 81.2% 71.3% 70.9% 75.2% 72.3% 75.3% 74.9% 74.2% 73.7% 81.2% 81.4%


84.8% 85.3% 82.9% 84.8% 83.2% 84.4% 82.1% 84.1% 81.5% 82.6% 84.3% 84.3%

Professional Development 73.0% 71.8% 65.8% 65.5% 63.5% 64.2% 64.1% 67.8% 67.1% 66.4% 70.6% 67.7%

Time 59.0% 57.7% 56.0% 57.0% 58.4% 56.9% 57.0% 60.2% 59.0% 60.3% 64.6% 63.4%

Facilities and Resources 83.3% 82.2% 76.6% 77.9% 79.9% 77.8% 79.4% 82.4% 82.2% 84.5% 82.7% 83.9%


87.3% 87.7% 76.8% 77.8% 77.2% 78.1% 81.4% 83.7% 74.2% 75.8% 83.5% 82.5%

Overall Reflection 85.1% 90.3% 79.2% 85.9% 82.1% 89.6% 78.7% 87.2% 79.9% 86.3% 85.4% 90.3%

District Supports 85.7% 82.8% 78.7% 81.0% 80.3% 79.3% 84.4% 76.4% 84.6% 82.4% 86.4% 86.0%

EDUCATORS’ RATES OF AGREEMENT BY CONSTRUCT DO NOT VARY A LOT BY SCHOOL LEVEL, HOWEVER, ELEMENTARY EDUCATORS VIEW TEACHING

CONDITIONS MORE POSITIVELY THAN EDUCATORS OF OTHER SCHOOL LEVELS.


CDE2020 | 1 | A | Spring 2020

Table 15 highlights the items with the greatest differences in perceptions across different school levels.

● One of the largest gaps between educators from Elementary schools (62.4%) and the ones from other school levels resides in the item “Rules for student behavior are enforced in a consistent manner" under Managing Student Conduct. The former rates 18-3 points higher than the latter. All school levels have a lower rating to this question item this year compared to the observed results from 2018.

● The favorability rating of Educators from Elementary schools (81.3%) is 20 points higher than the ones of their peers from High schools (61.5%) and Combined Middle and High schools (60.5%) to “The school provides strategies that families can use at home to support their children’s learning” under construct Community Support and Involvement.

● Class size is perceived to be less reasonable to Middle (63.9%) and High school (70.7%) teachers than to their peers from other school levels, with 2-20 points of difference.

● About 10 points of differences are seen in “School leaderships’ effectiveness is accurately assessed through the district’s evaluation process” and “The district provides constructive feedback to school leadership to improve performance.” under District Supports between educators from Elementary schools and the ones from Middle schools and High schools.

Table 15. 2020 vs 2018 TLCC Survey Results - Selected Items with Greatest Subgroup Disagreement by School Level

Construct Survey Items

E 2020

E 2018

M 2020

M 2018

H 2020

H 2018

EM 2020

EM 2018

MH 2020

MH 2018

EMH 2020

EMH 2018


Rules for student behavior are enforced in a consistent manner.

62.4% 65.2% 44.1% 49.2% 45.1% 48.0% 51.0% 55.5% 47.3% 55.3% 59.2% 63.9%

Community support and involvement

The school provides strategies that families can use at home to support their children's learning.

81.3% 84.5% 64.3% 69.0% 61.5% 64.2% 72.6% 76.9% 60.5% 63.8% 75.7% 78.0%


Students know how they are expected to act in the school.

87.1% 87.3% 73.0% 74.0% 73.8% 74.5% 78.1% 78.0% 75.1% 79.0% 83.5% 86.4%

Community support and involvement

The school's efforts to engage families are effective.

84.3% 83.4% 70.5% 71.1% 70.8% 73.2% 76.9% 79.9% 68.1% 69.4% 79.9% 77.8%


CDE2020 | 1 | A | Spring 2020


My class size(s) is reasonable.

76.7% 75.3% 63.9% 66.0% 70.7% 68.7% 72.2% 78.0% 82.9% 86.1% 83.4% 85.1%

District Supports

School leaderships’ effectiveness is accurately assessed through the district’s evaluation process.

83.3% 80.8% 72.8% 80.6% 73.4% 73.5% 80.7% 78.4% 78.2% 78.7% 87.0% 86.4%

District Supports

The district provides constructive feedback to school leadership to improve performance.

84.6% 82.3% 74.2% 77.7% 76.1% 74.7% 74.8% 72.7% 81.8% 78.9% 90.0% 87.5%


CDE2020 | 1 | A | Spring 2020

4.3 Comparisons by Years of Experience in Current Position at the Present School16 Educators’ rates of agreement by construct and item also vary by years of experience at their present school. Years of experience in the current position are categorized as First Year, 2-3 Years, 4-5 Years, 6-10 Years, 11-20 Years, and 20+ Years.

● First-year educators perceive teaching and learning conditions at their present school more positively than the veteran educators in all constructs but District Supports and Instructional Practices and Support. 17

● Educators who have 4-10 Years of experience perceive teaching and learning conditions less positively compared to peers of other experience levels in all constructs but School Leadership.

● Educators, regardless of experience levels, have similar rates of agreement for Facilities and Resources and Overall Reflection. (Figure 16 and Table 16)

16 This demographic question has been updated this year. 2020 results are incomparable with 2018 results for this disaggregation. 17 New Teacher Supports questions were not shown to veteran educators.

77.2%

84.1%

83.5%

86.6%

81.4%

78.6%

80.7%

78.6%

68.5%

56.3%

76.8%

81.5%

82.2%

83.6%

82.0%

78.3%

80.9%

76.2%

66.4%

56.9%

85.4%

85.3%

85.0%

84.7%

84.2%

82.0%

81.9%

80.5%

75.1%

65.2%

School Leadership


Overall Reflection


District Supports

Teacher Leadership




Time

Figure 16. Construct Results by Years of Experience in the Current Position at the Present School

First Year

2-3 Years

4-5 Years

6-10 Years

11-20 Years

20+ years


CDE2020 | 1 | A | Spring 2020

Table 16. 2020 TLCC Survey Results - Construct Results by Years of Experience in Current Position at the Present School

Construct First Year

2-3 Years

4-5 Years

6-10 Years

11-20 Years

20+ Years

School Leadership 85.4% 79.8% 77.5% 76.8% 76.1% 77.2%

Teacher Leadership 82.0% 78.8% 78.1% 78.3% 78.0% 78.6%

Managing Student Conduct 80.5% 76.9% 76.7% 76.2% 77.1% 78.6%


84.7% 81.9% 82.4% 83.6% 85.0% 86.6%

Professional Development 75.1% 68.4% 66.6% 66.4% 66.1% 68.5%

Time 65.2% 58.6% 57.1% 56.9% 55.2% 56.3%

Facilities and Resources 81.9% 80.4% 80.5% 80.9% 81.0% 80.7%

Community Support and Involvement 85.3% 80.5% 79.8% 81.5% 82.8% 84.1%

Overall Reflection 85.0% 81.9% 81.6% 82.2% 82.5% 83.5%

District Supports 84.2% 82.3% 82.3% 82.0% 83.2% 81.4%

EDUCATORS WHO ARE IN THEIR FIRST YEAR AT THEIR PRESENT SCHOOL PERCEIVE TEACHING AND LEARNING CONDITIONS MORE POSITIVELY, WHILE

EDUCATORS WITH 4-10 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE AT THEIR PRESENT SCHOOL PERCEIVE LESS POSITIVELY IN MOST OF THE AREAS.


CDE2020 | 1 | A | Spring 2020

Table 17 highlights some of the items with the greatest differences in perceptions between first year and veteran educators.

● Educators in their first year at their current school report rates of agreement 15 points higher than educators with more than 11 years of experience to the item regarding the teacher evaluation process.

● Fewer first year educators (76.3%) report that they have had leadership opportunities in their current school.

● Although Time is the lowest rated construct, beginning educators report higher rates of agreement to the item that they are given enough time to determine new initiatives effectiveness, compared to educators who have more than 4 years of experience, where there are more than 11 points of difference.

Table 17. 2020 TLCC Survey Results - Selected Items with Greatest Subgroup Disagreement by Years of Experience in the Current Position at the Present School

Construct Survey Items First Year

2-3 Years

4-5 Years

6-10 Years

11-20 Years

20+ years

School Leadership

This school is led by an effective team. 87.9% 82.2% 79.9% 79.2% 78.5% 78.8%

School Leadership

The teacher evaluation process provides me with actionable feedback for improvement.

81.1% 74.3% 69.0% 67.1% 65.3% 65.8%

School Leadership

School leadership puts suggestions made by staff into operation.

84.4% 78.3% 75.6% 74.6% 73.5% 73.4%

School Leadership

School leadership works to build trust among staff. 85.3% 77.9% 75.2% 74.0% 73.1% 75.2%

Teacher Leadership

I have had leadership opportunities in this school. 76.3% 82.2% 86.6% 88.0% 88.5% 90.4%

Teacher Leadership


79.1% 71.8% 68.9% 68.2% 67.3% 66.6%


Rules for student behavior are enforced in a consistent manner. 60.8% 52.3% 50.8% 50.6% 51.7% 55.7%



83.1% 74.6% 71.1% 71.2% 70.6% 73.7%



65.7% 56.2% 54.0% 53.7% 53.8% 56.9%


Professional learning opportunities (e.g., instructional coaching, PLCs, training) improve instruction in this school.

83.7% 77.6% 75.7% 74.8% 74.3% 73.7%


67.0% 56.0% 51.2% 51.2% 45.9% 46.7%


CDE2020 | 1 | A | Spring 2020

4.4 Comparisons by Years of Career Experience in Current Position18 Educators’ years of career experience in their current position also influence their perceptions of whether teaching and learning conditions are pleasant. Years of experience are categorized as First Year, 2-3 Years, 4-5 Years, 6-10 Years, 11-20 Years, and 20+ Years.

● Similar to the previous disaggregation, beginning educators perceive teaching and learning conditions more positively than the veteran educators, especially in Time, Professional Development, and School Leadership, each rate 8 points higher than the subgroup who has the lowest score within the construct. 19

● Educators who have 11-20 years of experience perceive teaching and learning conditions less positively compared to peers of other experience levels in almost all constructs but Community Support and Involvement and Instructional Practices and Support.

● Educators, regardless of experience levels, have similar rates of agreement for Facilities and Resources. (Figure 17 and Table 18)

18 This demographic question has been updated this year. 2020 results are incomparable with 2018 results for this disaggregation. 19 New Teacher Supports questions were not shown to veteran educators.

82.9%

77.8%

83.8%

85.8%

84.4%

80.5%

78.7%

78.4%

68.5%

56.9%

82.3%

81.1%

82.9%

82.8%

80.5%

81.6%

79.8%

78.2%

71.1%

60.7%

86.6%

86.6%

85.6%

85.1%

84.3%

83.7%

82.9%

80.9%

77.4%

65.8%

Overall Reflection

School Leadership

District Supports




Teacher Leadership



Time

Figure 17. Construct Results by Years of Career Experience in the Current Position

First Year

2-3 Years

4-5 Years

6-10 Years

11-20 Years

20+ years


CDE2020 | 1 | A | Spring 2020

Table 18. 2020 TLCC Survey Results - Construct Results by Years of Career Experience

Construct First Year

2-3 Years

4-5 Years

6-10 Years

11-20 Years

20+ Years

School Leadership 86.6% 81.1% 79.1% 79.0% 77.2% 77.8%

Teacher Leadership 82.9% 79.8% 78.7% 79.0% 78.3% 78.7%

Managing Student Conduct 80.9% 78.2% 76.8% 76.9% 76.7% 78.4%


85.1% 82.8% 81.8% 82.8% 83.9% 85.8%

Professional Development 77.4% 71.1% 67.8% 67.6% 66.5% 68.5%

Time 65.8% 60.7% 58.2% 58.4% 56.9% 56.9%

Facilities and Resources 83.7% 81.6% 80.7% 80.8% 80.5% 80.5%

Community Support and Involvement 84.3% 80.5% 79.8% 81.2% 82.2% 84.4%

Overall Reflection 86.6% 82.3% 81.4% 82.7% 82.4% 82.9%

District Supports 85.6% 82.9% 83.2% 82.3% 80.6% 83.8%


CDE2020 | 1 | A | Spring 2020

Table 19 highlights some of the items with the greatest differences in perceptions between beginning educators and veteran educators.

● Almost 9 out of 10 beginning educators (89.8%), whereas 8 out of 10 educators who have 11 or more years (79.5% of 11-20 years and 80.3% of 20+ years), believe that their school is led by an effective team.

● Educators in their first-year report rates of agreement 8 points higher than educators with more than 4 years of experience to the item regarding the teacher evaluation process. The more the years of experience, the lower is the score.

● Fewer first year educators (77.5%) report that they have had leadership opportunities in their current school. The more the years of experience, the more leadership opportunities they have had.

● Beginning educators report higher rates of agreement to the item that they are given enough time to determine new initiatives effectiveness, 21 points higher than the educators who have more than 20 years of experience.

● 78.6% of the school Leaders who have 11-20 years agree that the district involves principals in decisions that directly impact the operations of their school, whereas 90% of the beginning school leaders agree.

Table 19. 2020 TLCC Survey Results - Selected Items with Greatest Subgroup Disagreement by Years of Career Experience in the Current Position

Construct Survey Items First Year

2-3 Years

4-5 Years

6-10 Years

11-20 Years

20+ years

School Leadership

This school is led by an effective team. 89.8% 83.0% 81.5% 81.6% 79.5% 80.3%

School Leadership

My effectiveness is accurately assessed through the school's teacher evaluation process.

82.6% 76.9% 74.0% 74.0% 71.0% 70.5%

School Leadership

The teacher evaluation process provides me with actionable feedback for improvement.

84.3% 77.3% 72.6% 71.1% 67.5% 67.1%

School Leadership

School leadership works to build trust among staff. 85.9% 80.0% 77.6% 76.7% 74.7% 75.7%

Teacher Leadership

I have had leadership opportunities in this school. 77.5% 81.2% 84.0% 85.3% 86.1% 87.5%

Teacher Leadership


78.9% 73.4% 71.3% 70.5% 69.1% 68.2%



83.3% 78.0% 75.1% 72.3% 71.9% 73.0%



74.8% 67.2% 63.6% 62.2% 62.3% 63.3%



67.2% 58.6% 55.5% 55.4% 54.0% 57.6%


CDE2020 | 1 | A | Spring 2020


Professional learning opportunities (e.g., instructional coaching, PLCs, training) improve instruction in this school.

86.4% 81.1% 76.0% 76.4% 75.2% 75.0%


I receive ongoing support and coaching to improve my practice. 81.9% 73.8% 68.8% 68.7% 65.9% 68.3%



79.9% 71.4% 66.7% 66.6% 65.2% 67.5%

Time I have adequate time to prepare for instruction. 65.5% 59.5% 57.7% 57.2% 55.7% 55.5%

Time I have adequate time to support my students' social and emotional learning.

61.5% 56.5% 53.3% 52.6% 50.6% 50.6%


69.6% 61.2% 55.7% 54.1% 49.4% 47.8%

Overall Reflection

I feel satisfied with the recognition I get for doing a good job.

82.4% 74.7% 72.1% 73.8% 72.9% 72.6%

District Support

The district involves principals in decisions that directly impact the operations of their school.

90.0% 89.0% 84.8% 83.9% 78.6% 84.9%


CDE2020 | 1 | A | Spring 2020

About Cambridge Education

Cambridge Education is a subsidiary of the Mott MacDonald Group, a global independent multi-sector consulting company. The Group’s diversity and $2.2 billion in annual revenues makes it a unique employee-owned firm, with values centered on a commitment to serving the public interest.

Since 2002, Cambridge Education has been supporting the evaluation, analysis and design of large and technically complex projects that is also working at the school and classroom level: training, coaching and mentoring teams and individual educators in best teaching and learning practices.

Cambridge Education has conducted types of stakeholder surveys in many other states and provides professional development for teachers and principals across the country. Since 2007, Cambridge has collected millions of surveys, providing critical information about issues such as planning time, facilities and resources, professional development, school and teacher leadership, student engagement, social emotional learning, parent and community involvement and other aspects of the school environment that can influence teaching and learning conditions.

101 Station Drive Suite 130 Westwood, MA 02090

T: 781-915-0015 | F: 781-636-4026 |[email protected]

www.cedu.io


CDE2020 | 1 | A | Spring 2020

Appendix- District Response Rate

District ID District Responded Headcount Response Rate 0010 Mapleton 1 454 582 78.0% 0020 Adams 12 Five Star Schools 1434 2729 52.5% 0030 Adams County 14 393 430 91.4% 0040 School District 27J 873 1137 76.8% 0050 Bennett 29J 40 80 50.0% 0060 Strasburg 31J 19 85 22.4% 0070 Westminster Public Schools 237 622 38.1% 0100 Alamosa RE-11J 125 171 73.1% 0110 Sangre De Cristo Re-22J 15 41 36.6% 0120 Englewood 1 172 254 67.7% 0123 Sheridan 2 98 135 72.6% 0130 Cherry Creek 5 2048 4107 49.9% 0140 Littleton 6 745 1058 70.4% 0170 Deer Trail 26J 6 24 25.0% 0180 Adams-Arapahoe 28J 2243 3282 68.3% 0190 Byers 32J 0 234 0.0% 0220 Archuleta County 50 Jt 34 138 24.6% 0230 Walsh RE-1 6 19 31.6% 0240 Pritchett RE-3 1 23 4.3% 0250 Springfield RE-4 9 37 24.3% 0260 Vilas RE-5 4 10 40.0% 0270 Campo RE-6 12 16 75.0% 0290 Las Animas RE-1 37 94 39.4% 0310 McClave Re-2 12 29 41.4% 0470 St Vrain Valley RE1J 1373 2369 58.0% 0480 Boulder Valley Re 2 1738 2364 73.5% 0490 Buena Vista R-31 75 104 72.1% 0500 Salida R-32 95 131 72.5% 0510 Kit Carson R-1 0 22 0.0% 0520 Cheyenne County Re-5 0 23 0.0% 0540 Clear Creek RE-1 68 84 81.0% 0550 North Conejos RE-1J 11 104 10.6% 0560 Sanford 6J 21 39 53.8% 0580 South Conejos RE-10 25 26 96.2% 0640 Centennial R-1 28 32 87.5% 0740 Sierra Grande R-30 27 37 73.0% 0770 Crowley County RE-1-J 14 37 37.8%


CDE2020 | 1 | A | Spring 2020

0860 Custer County School District C-1 7 50 14.0%

0870 Delta County 50(J) 306 368 83.2% 0880 Denver County 1 1891 8534 22.2% 0890 Dolores County RE No.2 10 25 40.0% 0900 Douglas County Re 1 3096 4839 64.0% 0910 Eagle County RE 50 337 524 64.1% 0920 Elizabeth School District 69 176 39.2% 0930 Kiowa C-2 10 39 25.6% 0940 Big Sandy 100J 0 55 0.0% 0950 Elbert 200 0 28 0.0% 0960 Agate 300 5 11 45.5% 0970 Calhan RJ-1 16 46 34.8% 0980 Harrison 2 65 913 7.1% 0990 Widefield 3 383 777 49.3% 1000 Fountain 8 272 666 40.8% 1010 Colorado Springs 11 644 2149 30.0% 1020 Cheyenne Mountain 12 47 477 9.9% 1030 Manitou Springs 14 72 131 55.0% 1040 Academy 20 158 1989 7.9% 1050 Ellicott 22 86 88 97.7% 1060 Peyton 23 Jt 48 66 72.7% 1070 Hanover 28 0 27 0.0% 1080 Lewis-Palmer 38 378 542 69.7% 1110 District 49 333 1424 23.4% 1120 Edison 54 JT 1 21 4.8% 1130 Miami/Yoder 60 JT 21 28 75.0% 1140 Canon City RE-1 296 298 99.3% 1150 Fremont RE-2 105 114 92.1% 1160 Cotopaxi RE-3 15 27 55.6% 1180 Roaring Fork RE-1 439 482 91.1% 1195 Garfield Re-2 240 353 68.0% 1220 Garfield 16 14 88 15.9% 1330 Gilpin County RE-1 27 59 45.8% 1340 West Grand 1-JT 14 49 28.6% 1350 East Grand 2 121 137 88.3% 1360 Gunnison Watershed RE1J 173 213 81.2% 1380 Hinsdale County RE 1 18 18 100.0% 1390 Huerfano Re-1 22 36 61.1% 1400 La Veta Re-2 21 34 61.8% 1410 North Park R-1 14 22 63.6% 1420 Jefferson County R-1 3713 6427 57.7% 1430 Eads RE-1 8 25 32.0%


CDE2020 | 1 | A | Spring 2020

1440 Plainview RE-2 1 17 5.9% 1450 Arriba-Flagler C-20 2 21 9.5% 1460 Hi-Plains R-23 5 16 31.3% 1480 Stratton R-4 15 29 51.7% 1490 Bethune R-5 0 18 0.0% 1500 Burlington RE-6J 0 64 0.0% 1510 Lake County R-1 68 86 79.1% 1520 Durango 9-R 260 540 48.1% 1530 Bayfield 10 Jt-R 87 119 73.1% 1540 Ignacio 11 JT 75 78 96.2% 1550 Poudre R-1 1747 2332 74.9% 1560 Thompson R2-J 1007 1336 75.4% 1570 Estes Park R-3 77 113 68.1% 1580 Trinidad 1 35 70 50.0% 1590 Primero Reorganized 2 24 29 82.8% 1600 Hoehne Reorganized 3 20 26 76.9% 1620 Aguilar Reorganized 6 9 14 64.3% 1750 Branson Reorganized 82 5 38 13.2% 1760 Kim Reorganized 88 8 11 72.7% 1780 Genoa-Hugo C113 11 21 52.4% 1790 Limon RE-4J 2 43 4.7% 1810 Karval RE-23 0 14 0.0% 1828 Valley RE-1 174 189 92.1% 1850 Frenchman RE-3 0 27 0.0% 1860 Buffalo RE-4J 20 28 71.4% 1870 Plateau RE-5 20 24 83.3% 1980 De Beque 49JT 5 19 26.3% 1990 Plateau Valley 50 11 52 21.2% 2000 Mesa County Valley 51 1280 1683 76.1% 2010 Creede School District 12 19 63.2% 2020 Moffat County RE: No 1 82 158 51.9% 2035 Montezuma-Cortez RE-1 205 218 94.0% 2055 Dolores RE-4A 53 61 86.9% 2070 Mancos Re-6 13 53 24.5% 2180 Montrose County RE-1J 392 457 85.8% 2190 West End RE-2 14 45 31.1% 2395 Brush RE-2(J) 69 117 59.0% 2405 Fort Morgan Re-3 239 264 90.5% 2505 Weldon Valley RE-20(J) 5 26 19.2% 2515 Wiggins RE-50(J) 11 51 21.6% 2520 East Otero R-1 74 119 62.2% 2530 Rocky Ford R-2 39 73 53.4% 2535 Manzanola 3J 14 19 73.7%


CDE2020 | 1 | A | Spring 2020

2540 Fowler R-4J 19 59 32.2% 2560 Cheraw 31 14 28 50.0% 2570 Swink 33 34 37 91.9% 2580 Ouray R-1 8 61 13.1% 2590 Ridgway R-2 11 60 18.3% 2600 Platte Canyon 1 52 70 74.3% 2610 Park County RE-2 42 77 54.5% 2620 Holyoke Re-1J 16 49 32.7% 2630 Haxtun RE-2J 22 34 64.7% 2640 Aspen 1 144 191 75.4% 2650 Granada RE-1 0 23 0.0% 2660 Lamar Re-2 55 118 46.6% 2670 Holly RE-3 10 23 43.5% 2680 Wiley RE-13 Jt 0 35 0.0% 2690 Pueblo City 60 872 1121 77.8% 2700 Pueblo County 70 217 697 31.1% 2710 Meeker RE-1 30 53 56.6% 2720 Rangely RE-4 1 42 2.4%

2730 Upper Rio Grande School District C-7 17 41 41.5%

2740 Monte Vista C-8 113 122 92.6% 2750 Sargent RE-33J 37 37 100.0% 2760 Hayden RE-1 35 46 76.1% 2770 Steamboat Springs RE-2 187 228 82.0% 2780 South Routt RE 3 26 40 65.0% 2790 Mountain Valley RE 1 14 21 66.7% 2800 Moffat 2 16 32 50.0% 2810 Center 26 JT 41 63 65.1% 2820 Silverton 1 0 31 0.0% 2830 Telluride R-1 23 128 18.0% 2840 Norwood R-2J 26 29 89.7% 2862 Julesburg Re-1 24 44 54.5% 2865 Revere School District 16 20 80.0% 3000 Summit RE-1 295 352 83.8% 3010 Cripple Creek-Victor RE-1 0 40 0.0% 3020 Woodland Park Re-2 47 202 23.3% 3030 Akron R-1 24 38 63.2% 3040 Arickaree R-2 0 21 0.0% 3050 Otis R-3 25 26 96.2% 3060 Lone Star 101 0 29 0.0% 3070 Woodlin R-104 1 24 4.2% 3080 Weld County RE-1 149 186 80.1% 3085 Eaton RE-2 104 143 72.7%


CDE2020 | 1 | A | Spring 2020

3090 Weld County School District RE-3J 172 201 85.6%

3100 Windsor RE-4 344 510 67.5% 3110 Johnstown-Milliken RE-5J 240 255 94.1% 3120 Greeley 6 833 1512 55.1% 3130 Platte Valley RE-7 95 104 91.3% 3140 Weld Re-8 Schools 205 208 98.6% 3145 Ault-Highland RE-9 52 75 69.3% 3146 Briggsdale RE-10 2 24 8.3% 3147 Prairie RE-11 28 28 100.0% 3148 Pawnee RE-12 1 14 7.1% 3200 Yuma 1 58 82 70.7% 3210 Wray RD-2 63 69 91.3% 3220 Idalia RJ-3 0 23 0.0% 3230 Liberty J-4 0 14 0.0% 8001 Charter School Institute 239 1427 16.7%

9000 Colorado School for the Deaf and Blind 55 74 74.3%

9035 Centennial BOCES 7 16 43.8% 9050 San Juan BOCES 0 22 0.0% 9130 Expeditionary BOCES 19 33 57.6% 9170 Education reEnvisioned BOCES 70 94 74.5%


CDE2020 | 1 | A | Spring 2020

camb-ed-us.com

Documents

Teaching and Learning Conditions in Colorado SurveySummary of Key Findings From January 22nd to March 1st, the 2020 TLCC survey collected perception data from 37,536 educators across